Gerry Studds' Husband Shut Out of Federal Pension Benefits

[rodeodance]

sorry no link as this was sent to me:

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: gay marriage benefits, not
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:57:01 -0500
From: xxxxx
To: xxxxxxxx


10/17/2006
Gerry Studds' Husband Shut Out of Federal Pension Benefits

Despite the sad news of Congressman Gerry Studds' death, it was exciting to see his "husband" Dean Hara referred to in mainstream news publications across the nation. For the first time, a government official's same-sex spouse was not referred to as partner, boyfriend, longtime companion, or friend.

But the federal laws have yet to catch up with the laws of Massachusetts, and Studds' death has forced into the open the inequality gay couples face when it comes to marriage benefits. Partnered for 15 years, and married when they were able in 2004, Hara deserves the benefits offered to spouses of other deceased lawmakers, who collect more than half of the pensions earned by their spouses:

"When Studds, 69, died from a vascular illness Saturday, he was receiving an estimated annual pension of $114,337, according to the National Taxpayers Union, which studies federal pensions. Studds was first elected to Congress in 1972 and served until 1997. His district represented Cape Cod and the Islands, New Bedford and the South Shore.

If Hara were a woman and married to Studds -- rather than a same-sex spouse -- he would receive $62,000 a year from Studds' pension program under the congressional retirement system, according to NTU guidelines."

........
"And the truly sick part of it is that pension benefits are still offered to congressmen convicted of felonies! Like Bob Ney, .....""Ney will still receive $29,000 a year in federal pension for the rest of his life."....."Studds' husband will receive nothing. The federal law, defined by the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by Bill Clinton in 1996, trumps all state laws regarding benefits to same-sex spouses...."

[HereSince1628]

1. But denying same sex unions was, is and will always be about denying

benefits.

[BootinUp]

6. disagree

Its about hate and bigotry led by the major religious institutions in our country.

[HereSince1628]

7. I respect your believing what you will but I think thats a deception

even if the hate and bigotry are real.

Government's interest are really protection of the state, development of the commonwealth, regulation of trade, commerce--essentially the transfer of property and wealth--and collection of the taxes that pay for all that.

In my opinion its employers and insurer's who want to limit their exposure to claims and whip up both the public frenzy and government opposition.

[BootinUp]

9. I see your point

both factors are at play.

[terrya]

2. This is so sad.

And while I'm in a fuck you mode....fuck you, Bill Clinton. The "friend of the gay community". This is what his gleeful signing of the Defense of Marriage Act has caused.

Dean Hara is deserving of that pension. I'm sorry he's going through this just because of some bigots who place politics above basic humanity.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. And after it was signed, in secret on a Friday night

(well, as secretly as it is possible to sign a bill into law) Al Gore spent the next month and a half before the election coming up with excuses as to how the gay community has no choice but to vote Democratic because they were our best friends and allies. (Isert picture of defecating bovine here.)

[varun]

3. link

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15314130/

[Mass]

5. It is the law - Why should he be treated differently from other people?

Blame those who supported DOMA.

[TechBear_Seattle]

8. Like Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Patty Murray?

I tried that. Any time I bring up their collusion with this atrocity, I'm told to shut up, sit at the back of the bus, and either vote Democratic or be exterminated.

[woo me with science]

10. GERRY STUDDS HAD SEX WITH A 17-YEAR-OLD CONGRESSIONAL PAGE!!!!!

He should not get a pension at all!!!!

Geez folks....hypocrisy much?!!!!

[BootinUp]

11. There are some

pretty clear differences between this story and the one you seem to be comparing this to, maybe you should take the time to look into it before going off on folks.

[woo me with science]

12. Rationalizations

for predatory behavior really disgust me. I don't care what party you are from.

[BootinUp]

13. I am not convinced

it falls into a predatory behavior category.

[woo me with science]

14. Of course you aren't.

And your argument, by the way, is really compelling.

[BootinUp]

15. Apparently

the page appeared with Studds 10 years later in a show of support and did not describe it the way you are seeing it. I do think it was wrong. But predatory seems a bit strong.

[woo me with science]

16. So if Foley's page says things are hunky dory between them,

he should be able to stay in Congress and collect his pension, too?

[BootinUp]

17. you mean pages with an s?

The term predatory behavior to me suggests a pattern, more than once. I think its already on record that more than one page objected to Foley's advances, and pages were warned about his behavior.

My final thought, you could be right though that Studds was predatory, I see differences based on what we know but there may be things we don't know about Studds.

[woo me with science]

18. I "could" be right.

But then again, maybe the Democratic position should be that having sex with just ONE underage page is okay?

[BootinUp]

19. I guess when I said wrong

you missed it?

I think it was wrong for a 33 year old Congressman to get into a sexual relationship with a 17 year old from a moral ethical standpoint.


OTOH, It wasn't illegal. And 17 year olds do have their own mind and their own sexual drive, if they become 18 is there all of a sudden a huge difference in state of mind and/or development? Its a line that is drawn somewhat arbitrarily. In DC it was set at 16.

As to whether it should be called predatory I am ambivalent.

on edit he was 35 or 36 yrs old at the time.

[woo me with science]

20. I am still trying to clarify your position re: the pension,

which was the original point of the thread, and my response.

So it should be the Democratic position that it is okay to have sex with just ONE underage page, and keep your office and pension, as long as the page is happy with the relationship?

[BootinUp]

21. Unprofessional and unethical behavior

does not always call for the ultimate penalty. His constituents re-elected him more than once after this. You think he was predatory, if that is true I think he should be penalized like you suggest. I am not able to reach the same conclusion.

[woo me with science]

22. Actually, I have more sympathy for your position than you think.

I agree that 17-year-olds are not children and that there is no magic line between 17 years, 11 months and 18 years of age. I am annoyed by posts that refer to 17-year-olds as "children," because they clearly are not.

However, I am very concerned about a few things. First, the subordinate relationship of a page to a Congressman--and related to this, the high ethical standard to which we should hold our elected representatives. People send their teens to serve as Congressional pages, and they should not have to worry about some 50-something year-old Congressman hitting on them. It is scummy behavior and should not be tolerated.

It is the hypocrisy that galls me. If hitting on a Congressional page is wrong, it should be wrong for EVERY Congressman. It makes me sick to see people leap to the defense of a Democrat who does it, just because he is a Democrat. I don't for a second believe that you would be making these arguments in defense of Studds, if he were a Republican.

Consistency matters. Ethics matter. The way things stand right now, we have emails and IM's implicating Foley, but still no direct evidence of any sexual contact. People are ready to ride Foley out and yet can DEFEND a Democratic Congressman who actually took a page to bed. That is why I kept trying to get you to state the Democratic position. What should the Democratic position be? Do you realize how silly that sounds...that having sex with ONE underage page might be okay to stay in Congress? That will not play in middle America, and, frankly, it doesn't play with me, either. It looks hypocritical, because it is.

[BootinUp]

23. Consistency and Ethics

important, absolutely. The Democrats that have spoken out on the Foley matter have focused on a coverup of predatory behavior that was continuing and under the full knowledge of the House leadership (it appears to me at least) and not to mention the additional hypocrisy because these people win elections on claims of being the family values crowd.

I don't see the same situation in the other case. I don't agree that middle America does either.

[woo me with science]

24. Nonsense.

How much do we know about Studds? How do we know what other pages he may have had contact with? We know little, because Democrats chose to give him a pass on a sexual relationship with an underage page.

Defending a pension for a Congressman who took an underage page to bed is reprehensible. And stinks of hypocrisy now.

[BootinUp]

25. Reports seem to indicate

it was not known until many years later what had happened. Unless you have some other information on that.

[woo me with science]

26. Actually that is not true.

They knew about in 1983, and he was re-elected twice afterward. And he never said he was sorry. He defended the behavior based on its being consensual.

[BootinUp]

27. I think we've covered that.

No see above for my indecision on whether Studds is entitled to a pension.

You want a Democrat hanging apparently. Sorry you'll have to wait till the next time.

[woo me with science]

28. No, I don't want a Democrat hanging.

However, I am not prepared to defend a Democrat who hangs himself, just because he is a Democrat.

Your honesty in this post is refreshing, though. We have gone through all the typical rationalizations....It was just ONE page, the page was almost 18, the page was smiling, etc...

But in the end, ethical assessments come down to the party affiliation. How sad.